Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0428 A. [lae acceptance of the E.I.S. a .inite decision should <br />be made on these streams. Either they should be developed with full <br />E.I.S. review or the decrees should be dropped and they become part <br />of the Fryingpan stream stabilizing scheme. (CEQ ~ 1500.1) <br /> <br />IV. Alternatives <br />--- <br /> <br />Chapter IX does not give a fair evaluation of alternatives as mandated <br />by the Nationdl Ellviromoont,ll Policy Act. The chapter is mostly <br />a discussion of different en~ineering approaches which all produce the <br />same effett. In particular. the use of Fryingoan river water in ex- <br />change for the Hunter Creek system (to include nidI-lay and rio-Name <br />Creeks) is given superficial treatment at best, The relative social <br />and eClJnomi c meri ts of a broad range of divers ion amoun ts is not pt'e- <br />sented and such a comparison is the basic prerequisite for makin') a <br />judgement on a project of this scope, t'1oreover, no tradeoff fral".e~lork <br />is established to allOloJ an enli~htened citizenry choice betl'/eenrec- <br />reational amenities or "municipal and industrial develooment." <br /> <br />V. r~iscellaneolJs Comments <br /> <br />The following are specific criticisms that don't lend themselves to <br />anyone subj ect a rea bu t are of equa 1 importa nce. <br /> <br />A. The report does not discuss increases in salinity and <br />downstream impacts on the Arkansas River, The additional sorawling <br />subdivison made possible by these diversions and the imoacts of <br />continued front range urbanization are wholly omitted from the dis- <br />cussion and are clearly the most important consequence of this orojcct. <br />ICEQ!i J500.8 (a) (3) ) <br /> <br />B. <br />regimens. <br /> <br />The report does not discuss imoacts on east slope stream <br />(C[Q !i 1500.8 (a) (3) ) <br /> <br />C. As of yet, no concrl'te plan e;:ists for the protection of <br />the Interlaken Hotel Complex on the south shore of T\'lin Lakes, The <br />report does not consider reducing the dam height to protect these <br />structures. At this point one has to assume that these historic struc- <br />tures l'lill eitller be moved, destroyed or put undel' "later, r,lovement <br />would certainly diminish the historic value of the buildings, <br />(CEQ ~ J500,g (a) (3) ) <br /> <br />0, The report does not discuss the secondary impact of private, <br />recreational lanel develoordent at the oro,iect fccilities, Purchase of <br />critical lands sl1nuld be considered by the [lureau of Reclal"ation and <br />identified in Ci,,"IJLI' V as a mitigating mccsu((:. (CEQ ~ 1~O'J,8 (a) (3) <br /> <br />E. :~~l,"JS':~'--':-: ::-.:1~:",:.~ ~.C' t....~~..2n -:.; '''l'::~.:<r. :~;c Ccl(.'t".:d::-' ::~\I.=t' Cut- <br />th(Q.-Jt t~~i.)ul ;11 :;.::~"~11 ~~:i:nin(:..!13;1; Cl'~~~:Ls. S:..;ch 1:",.;?;;SUr"es should to <br />i dc' n t i T- i ~. cJ i n L ~: . :-, :, t~ ( '.'. ( C ~ ~ S 1:/) rJ . ~ ~ (a) (3) <br /> <br />F. r'lini"~'.II:~ flo',:s should be establ ished in Lake Creek to allO\'1 <br />spa,':ning runs frcl'l the Arkansas River, (CEO S J500,8 (a) (3) ) <br /> <br />-5- <br />